9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents : Mr. G. RM. Palaniappan for 2nd respondent in both appeals ORDER (Delivered by R. Sudhakar,J.) These appeals are filed against the Final Order Nos.932 and 931 of 2006 respectively, dated 28.9.2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal ) and were admitted on the following substantial questions of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learances and demand of duty on inputs" (iii) Whether the Tribunal's interpretation of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jalaram Wood Crafts (P) Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 79 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Universal Electrical Industries, (2003) 4 SCC 337 discussed in the earlier paras is right and relevant to the instant issue" (iv) Is the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed clause (f) in paragraph 5 has to be given retrospective effect. Consequently, we hold that notification No.69 of 1997 dated 03.12.1997 inserting clause (f) in Explanation to paragraph 5 is only prospective in nature and consequently would not be of any relevance to the case on hand. 26. We reject the plea of the Revenue that the amendment brought to the Explanation is always clarificatory in n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 3. We are in complete agreement with the law laid down in the decision referred supra. In terms of the said decision, the substantial questions of law (i) and (ii) are answered against the Revenue. 4. In view of the above, the questions of law (iii) and (iv) will become academic and redundant and we do not feel it appropriate to answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
